Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] powerpc/e500: separate e500 from e500mc

[Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Nov 9, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I saw Baruch Siach's patch:
>  powerpc: 85xx: separate e500 from e500mc
> 
> Unfortunately, that patch breaks the dependencies for the P5020DS
> platform and does not fix the underlying code which does not
> understand what the ambiguous "CONFIG_E500" means.
> 
> In order to fix the issue at the fundamental level, I created the
> following 17-patch series loosely based on Baruch's patch.
> 
> === High-Level Summary ===
> 
> The e500v1/v2 and e500mc/e5500 CPU families are not compatible with
> each other, yet they share the same "CONFIG_E500" Kconfig option.
> 
> The following patch series splits the 32-bit CPU support into two
> separate options: "CONFIG_FSL_E500_V1_V2" and "CONFIG_FSL_E500MC".
> Additionally, the 64-bit e5500 support is separated to its own config
> option ("CONFIG_FSL_E5500") which is automatically combined with
> either 32-bit e500MC or 64-bit Book-3E when the P5020DS board support
> is enabled.

So its clear from the community that there is confusion here and we need to clean this up.  I guess my attempt to support an kernel that ran on both E500v2 and E500mc isn't worth it.  However I don't want to completely remove the ability to do this.

Towards the cleanup I'd ask for a proposal on what exactly the CONFIG_ options we'd end up with would be and their meaning.

So today we have:

CONFIG_E500
CONFIG_PPC_E500MC

What do we want to move to?  I want to keep the builds such that we have only 2 classes:  e500V1/V2 and e500mc/e5500/e6500/.../eX500.  I see no reason to hyper-optimize e500mc vs e5500 vs e6500.

- k